Workplace practices - Using a pseudonym on correspondence to protect identity

An agency
implemented a policy that required employees to include their names in their signature
block when writing to clients. One employee with a unique name was concerned about
the risk to herself and her family and sought approval to use her maiden name
or a pseudonym.

The matter was reviewed first in the agency. The agency
review identified that there was a legal requirement for certain letters to identify
the author by surname. In addition, the use of a pseudonym was not feasible for
system generated letters. The agency's review proposed several options that
could have provided a solution to the employee's concerns, including having letters
issued by another employee.

The employee
sought review by the Merit Protection Commissioner as she thought using a pseudonym
was the best option, submitting that the enterprise agreement provided that the
agency would work towards ensuring that all employees have a choice about how
they used their name in response to public enquiries, including in
correspondence and face to face contact.

The Merit Protection Commissioner noted the provisions in
the enterprise agreement regarding employee identification and the commitment
in the agreement to working towards ensuring choice in these matters. However,
the Merit Protection Commissioner accepted that, as a result of legal advice, employee
choice could not always be accommodated. The Merit Protection Commissioner was also
satisfied that, from an IT perspective, it was not possible for the employee to
use a pseudonym on her signature block without having to change her identity
across agency business systems. The employee was not interested in changing her
name for work purposes.

In these circumstances, the Merit Protection Commissioner
considered that the solution recommended by the agency review was fair and
reasonable, as well as workable. The Merit Protection Commissioner recommended
the agency confirm the actions under review.